JUDGMENT :

S.C. Sharma, J.

1. I.A. No. 1/2019 is an application for condonation of delay. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay stands condoned for the reasons detailed in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application stands allowed in all the appeals.

2. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in all the three cases, they were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed.

3. The facts of W.A. No. 3970/2019 are reproduced as under:

That, the appellants before this Court were the owners of the residential property bearing No. 85, having Khatha No. 268/123/85, measuring 7206 Sq. Ft., situated at Hollywood Town, Ilathore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The property was purchased by the appellants on 11.09.1996 through a registered sale deed. The appellants as intended to sell the property and as they were not in a position to personally execute the sale deed, appointed Mr. John Robert Colaco as their Power of Attorney Holder and executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 25.03.2011 authorising Mr. John Robert Colaco to sell the property. The stamp duty amounting to Rs. 3,89,160/- was paid in the matter. The appellants have further stated that Power of Attorney dated 25.3.2011 does not create any right, interest in or over the property in favour of Power of Attorney Mr. John Robert Colaco and he was only authorised to sell the property.

4. The Power of Attorney holder Mr. John Robert Colaco executed a sale deed on 16.05.2011 in favour of Agnelo Franscisco Cabral, Mrs. Terezinha Diniz Cabral and Mr. Trevor Savio Cabral. At the time of execution of the registered sale deed on 16.05.2011, full stamp duty amounting to Rs. 4,39,820/- was paid and the stamp duty already paid in respect of General Power of Attorney was not adjusted at the time when the registration of sale deed took place. The appellants, being aggrieved by the alleged excess collection of stamp duty by the Authorities, submitted a representation on 15.12.2011 requesting for refund of the excess stamp duty of Rs. 3,89,160/- as the same was not adjusted while executing the sale deed dated 16.05.2011. However, an order was passed by the 1st respondent on 02.01.2012 rejecting the claim of the appellants declining to refund the excess duty paid. In those circumstances, the appellants preferred writ petitions before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12376/2014 and connected writ petitions and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions on 06.08.2019. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and fact in dismissing the writ petitions by holding that the Karnataka Stamp (Amendment) Act, 2011 which came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2011 is having retrospective effect. It has been also argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to notice that the respondent-authorities have collected the stamp duty even though there was a registered power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. John Robert Colaco on 25.03.2011 and the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 3,89,160/- was paid and the same had to be adjusted at the time of execution of the sale deed based upon the General Power of Attorney. It has been further argued that the Karnataka Stamp Act was amended relating to Article 41(eb) only w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and was having only prospective effect. The learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in case of SHARMA TRANSPORT VS. GOVERNMENT OF AP AND OTHERS reported in 2002 (2) SCC 188 on the issue of promissory estoppel. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRI